17:00:48 #startmeeting Board (2014-10-13) 17:00:48 Meeting started Mon Oct 13 17:00:48 2014 UTC. The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:48 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:49 #meetingname board 17:00:50 The meeting name has been set to 'board' 17:00:54 #chair mattdm gholms cwickert inode0 mjg59 Sparks jwb number80 yn1v 17:00:54 Current chairs: Sparks cwickert gholms inode0 jwb mattdm mjg59 number80 yn1v 17:00:56 #topic Hello everybody, so glad to see you! 17:01:17 hello! who is around? 17:01:19 .fas yn1v 17:01:20 yn1v: yn1v 'Neville A. Cross' 17:02:28 hi yn1v! 17:02:31 just the two of us? 17:02:31 hey 17:02:36 :) 17:02:38 hi inode0! 17:02:51 hello mattdm inode0 17:02:55 I went through the open tickets this morning... 17:02:55 heya 17:02:59 hi number80! 17:03:14 a few of them were open pending me doing something, so I did those things and closed them 17:04:21 #topic agenda 17:04:39 I don't think we have any urgent action items at this point 17:04:55 The main thing is coordinating the upcoming election 17:05:10 and supporting fesco/famsco in their representative process 17:05:12 hi, i'm here now 17:05:16 hi jwb! 17:05:32 does anyone have any other agenda items? 17:05:54 nope 17:06:07 maybe some election process discussion 17:06:31 yeah, let's start with that, and then move to open floor after 17:06:37 #topic Election process discussion 17:07:09 I think Josh's point that we should wait until after the representative positions are chosen is a good one 17:07:49 *nods* 17:08:14 That is fine with me although not a big deal either way - either someone has to wait if you want to avoid conflicts (which I think would be rare) 17:08:17 goal champions could be chosen later 17:08:30 number80: yes, they should be chosen by the new council 17:08:42 but I am going to start a discussion about those goals in the meantime 17:08:56 (I have a message in draft form that I'm working on) 17:09:56 I mean we could schedule the election - and if fesco/famsco can't choose before it they could wait until after it too 17:10:12 We had some discussion about moving the wiki-based questionnaire to being something we do by email and then publish on the fedora magazine 17:10:24 who waits is what doesn't matter to me if that wasn't clear 17:10:36 inode0: yes sounds clear :) 17:11:32 i think the current course as it's set up right now (with the requests I made to fesco/famsco).. 17:11:34 mattdm: if we're moving questionnaire to the magazine, could it also be featured into the landing page slideshow ? 17:12:00 ...is for the representative roles to come first. Does anyone have an objection to that? 17:12:19 number80: you mean on http://fedoraproject.org/? 17:12:20 So I do have some thoughts about the questionnaire/townhalls which I want to put on the record even though I don't expect anyone else to agree with me. 17:12:24 mattdm: yup 17:12:26 inode0: go for it 17:12:38 * mattdm hold on afk for a few minutes brb 17:13:10 I think both have proven to be a complete failure for many elections now and should be dropped entirely at this point. 17:13:24 inode0, yes. i agree completely 17:13:32 People don't come to the townhalls, people don't read either the townhall logs or the questionnaires. 17:13:46 Both are a hassle for organizers and candidates. 17:13:53 though I agree, I'd like to keep the questionnaires 17:14:01 Both discourage participation when they were intended to encourage it. 17:14:42 i'd rather just have people email candidates with their questions 17:15:18 I see no real reason now not to revert to a simpler and shorter election process. 17:15:34 it would be nice to have questions & answers public 17:15:55 * mattdm is back -- sorry, kids off school today! 17:16:02 It would be nice if someone would read them but that doesn't happen so it is a waste of energy. 17:16:24 inode0: yes, I tend to agree 17:16:46 I do read them but I'm a special case :) 17:16:56 The magazine proposal is an attempt to address that 17:17:03 Well, there is a fair amount of agreement so maybe we should think about this some 17:17:32 at least, nobody complained about dropping townhalls at this point 17:17:32 I _would_ like people to have an opportunity to meaningfully present their ideas and plans 17:17:34 number80: you and 25 other people who read them but probably don't learn much new from them read them :) 17:17:44 It shouldn't be a name-recognition contest 17:18:01 inode0: I found surprising things at least twice :) 17:18:18 I do read wiki summar when I don't know the person 17:18:45 mattdm: I hear that a lot and while intuitively I can believe there is some of that having a recognized name doesn't mean that is why *anyone* voted for you. 17:19:36 We used to have candidates express all that in their nomination page. 17:19:38 inode0: I definitely hope it is never the only factor 17:19:49 Sorry, all. Internet problems. :( 17:20:02 hi gholms! talking about election process and town halls 17:20:18 inode0: Are there active things you would replace the townhalls with? 17:20:24 Wiki pages, Q&A and all that? 17:20:29 gholms yeah. 17:20:44 * number80 in favour of trying the fedora magazine path 17:21:11 mattdm: I really like the townhalls but they I don't feel they are worth the effort to continue for my pleasure - I think someone needs to convince the community to care first. 17:22:06 So, no, I don't have any plan to replace it now. I think a simpler election has benefits and the same result. 17:22:47 * gholms finds them useful, but another "Q&A with the community" mechanism should work just as well 17:22:52 So... the natural question is "how can we convince the community to care". But I guess a better one is "What does the community care about and how can we connect that to the elction process?" 17:23:20 Piss them off somehow is the usual way to get any group to care. :) 17:23:23 gholms: something like ask fedora ? 17:24:10 inode0 Or to put that another way, people care when the decision seems like it might affect what they do 17:24:31 Assuming it can take multiple answers equally, sure. Talk pages might work, too. 17:25:22 it can and people could vote their favorite answer, could an useful tool 17:25:31 number80: it might be interesting to use the askbot engine. anyone could ask questions, and we'd restrict answers to declared candidates 17:25:43 but I don't think that mixes well with the existing ask fedora 17:25:54 No! Favorite answers is antithetical to what we'd need here. 17:25:57 mattdm: maybe, fesco definitely affects people and the same rough small number of votes is cast each election 17:26:20 could have each candidate do one of those ask-me-anything things 17:26:30 Ooh, there's an idea. 17:26:32 jwb: on reddit? 17:26:41 mattdm, *shrug* 17:26:53 Do we have another platform for it? 17:27:02 not particularly 17:27:12 though not every candidate is going to be on reddit either 17:27:40 Why will that draw people to it that won't come to a townhall or read a wiki page or ask the candidate something directly? 17:27:40 Heck, a wiki page could work for that. 17:28:17 gholms: although _active_ wiki talk converations can get messy 17:28:30 and I think the voting up or down of responses is part of why AMA works on reddit 17:28:35 inode0, it might not. my biggest gripe about townhalls though were 1) specific time limits participation, 2) it's a jumbled mess to read, and 3) you get a lot of repeat answers because all the candidates are in one place at one time 17:28:41 have each candidate put it on their blog and said blog linked to the planet 17:28:52 inode0: I want something interactive and public. The reason I tend to miss townhalls is scheduling, so something with a little more delay and organization may be better. 17:28:54 making it a per-candidate thread over a longer time period might help 17:28:56 or it might now 17:28:59 er not 17:29:04 i was literally just throwing out ideas 17:30:01 The problem I see with dragging out discussions is most people who are motivated enough to come to read the discussion once probably won't keep coming back to see updates. 17:30:41 or a moderated mailing list with a script to forbid replies from non-candidates 17:30:45 * inode0 is very pessimistic about anything working short of bribing people 17:30:53 So, imperfect as it may be, I'm leaning towards a one-time interview in magazine, plus keeping the town halls. 17:30:57 inode0, lol 17:31:28 mattdm: Basically taking the wiki stuff and making it a magazine thing? 17:31:59 I'll come at this from one more angle and then drop it ... 17:32:05 gholms: yeah, although we'd solicit questions by email, prepare a standard interview, and then publish responses all at once. 17:32:27 mattdm, how is that any different from the current questionaire that nobody bothers to submit questions for? 17:32:35 you aren't changing anything other than the place it's published. 17:32:46 I don't like townhalls, in the ones that I have been candidate there are more candidates and organizer than public 17:32:50 Think about all this from the candidate perspective too. Each hurdle might seem fairly small to us as non-candidates but each hurdle rules out potential candidates who don't want to do those things. 17:33:43 jwb: I think making collecting community questions the _basis_ is the flaw. We should start with some simple ones, and allow the community input into expanding those. 17:34:03 mattdm: Wasn't it a one-time thing? 17:34:09 A couple of times we had "whelp, no questions, so no questionnaire" 17:34:10 mattdm, i think you'll wind up with only the simple ones and then it'll still be a pointless exercise 17:34:30 if they don't whant do those things, then they are not motivated to do more things? It is a bad thing to have a small barrier? 17:34:36 doing both questionaire and townhall is overkill. 17:34:47 particularly given the lack of participation for either one 17:34:48 okay, maybe "simple" is the wrong word. 17:35:06 Besides, no candidate has ever been ruled out for not participating in townhall or even answering the questionnaire 17:35:24 jwb with that argument I could be convinced to drop the town hall 17:35:26 number80: That is absolutely not the case for me. 17:35:28 yn1v: my feeling is most great leaders don't want to and are not willing to campaign - they need to be recruited 17:35:43 gholms: did that happen ? :/ 17:35:55 number80: Yeah. I didn't vote for them. 17:36:10 gholms: but they were still candidate 17:36:20 number80: So? 17:36:31 guys, terminology difference. stop it 17:36:39 *nods* 17:36:47 jwb: Not at all. 17:36:50 inode0, has we have any time any sort of recruiting candidates? 17:36:54 ..but still irrelevant. 17:37:15 gholms, you didn't vote for them. others might have because they were still on the ballot. it's a terminology difference 17:37:36 * yn1v nods 17:37:41 unless you're advocating for removing people from teh ballot in that case. if so, please be clearer 17:37:48 yn1v: yes, people ask others they know and think would be good leaders to run all the time 17:38:10 jwb: It sounds like that was his point: we haven't. 17:38:28 what? 17:38:35 * jwb gives up 17:38:37 Okay, so there's a decidable thing. Assuming we have an interview to run in the magazine, should we drop people who don't respond? 17:39:01 since they can answer asynchronuously (no TZ issue) => yes 17:39:09 that mean they don't care at all 17:39:18 * inode0 will just note that some groups did reject candidates who did not answer required questions on the nomination page in the past 17:39:31 mattdm: Given the level of participation we're asking of council members I'm willing to say yes. 17:39:49 anyone disagree? 17:39:51 sorry inode0, I have asked, and as said yes, I went to all the requisites, because I committed 17:40:28 Since I don't think an interview will be seen by anyone then I wouldn't reject a candidate for not giving one 17:40:28 yes, Ithinh as long they have time, who fail to commit to a small task won't do good in bigger tasks 17:41:31 inode0: Is there a way in which interviews _could_ be made more visible? 17:41:57 I mean, we need to assume that we have some way of communicating meaningfully within the project! 17:42:00 mattdm: I don't think visibility is the problem - the problem is there is almost no audience for them 17:42:39 The point of the council is to change that, no? 17:42:52 and again I feel this is a lot of effort be expended when it is only going to apply to 2 of 12 seats 17:43:31 meaninful way to reach ... not sure ... announcement list ? maybe not event sure 17:43:35 inode0: So, since I think it's clear that there was a strong demand for elected positions, I'm not sure I agree about lack of audience, but if we accept that as true now, I think it's part of our job to address that. 17:44:24 inode0: from a PR point of view, I'd like to see council folks being interviewed in fedora magazine 17:44:31 or at least featured 17:44:32 mattdm: ok, we created townhalls and questionnaires trying to address that! I'm just observing after 5 years I don't think this is the answer. 17:45:32 inode0: I really do partly think that the problem is that the townhalls are buried in irc and the questionnaires on our very over-extended and disorganized wiki 17:45:36 But this is much less important to me today. We have only two seats subject to this now. 17:46:37 1 seat per release going forward 17:47:38 inode0: So, do you think we shouldn't require the interview to be completed? 17:48:00 and I wonder if the community rejects this in part because it politicizes these elected positions moving them away for meritocratic ideals 17:48:12 * mattdm guesses that we can just leave it and have "_____ did not complete the interview by the deadline." 17:48:51 mattdm: some bodies used to just ask for a number of questions to be answered as part of the self-nomination process 17:49:06 I'd be okay with that. If nothing else it would make things easier to find. 17:49:25 * gholms hrms 17:50:34 But if 50 IPs view those and 200 people vote and I think we in the end are trusting to 200 people to make a good choice and they don't make it based on answers to questions or townhalls, they make it based on what they know about the candidates already. 17:51:00 In any case, I would like to send a message outlining the importance of these elections and the impact the seated members will have 17:51:18 inode0: I don't entirely disagree 17:51:39 Would anyone else like to write, draft, or help draft that message? 17:51:39 That's probably true to an extent, yeah. 17:52:29 I think that this election will be different as there will be only two representative seats, and probably there will be a expectation of more action 17:53:20 I'm not sure I'm confident that very many people who could vote have any idea what is going on. 17:53:43 not so sure, we have a low voter rate 17:53:57 inode0, are you suggesting a minimum voter percentage for the elections to be valid? 17:54:05 I don't expect that to change but it will be interesting if it does 17:54:12 jwb: not at all 17:54:28 inode0, ok. just confused because it sounds like you think elections are pointless in general at the moment 17:54:34 inode0: or conversely, suggestiong a higher participation threshold for voting? 17:54:48 I don't think we will have 100% voters, I think we will have some increment 17:55:12 yn1v, the past several elections, for _any_ election, as never gone above 20% 17:55:22 jwb: I think townhalls and other fuss around elections are pointless. Just self-nominate, vote, be done with it. We get the same result I think. 17:55:23 Desire for elections seems pretty strong overall. We should try to make them as effective as we can. 17:55:34 inode0, ok, clear enough. 17:55:58 okay, so.. five minutes left in the hour. 17:56:06 one question: what is 100% for you ? FAS membership based or activity based ? 17:56:14 the threshold would be quite different 17:57:03 I guess my leaning above has tilted towards doing the magazine interview but dropping the townhalls 17:57:11 badges based 17:57:19 lol 17:57:24 mattdm: I have a desire for the community to be able to effect change through the governance process when it feels governance isn't serving them. 17:57:25 (one vote per badge!) 17:57:40 yn1v: it did work for nuancier, nonetheless ;) 17:58:19 inode0: and, to interpret: if they're not voting, it basically means everything is fine? 17:58:36 (I'm not necessarily disagreeing or agreeing, just want to understand) 17:58:40 to me it means they aren't annoyed enough to organize and act 17:59:35 I doubt Fedora governance would ever get to that point - but philosophically I like have a mechanism for peaceful rebellions :) 17:59:40 That makes sense, although I really hope for something better than annoyance or anger-based participation 17:59:53 for when we're far, far way from that point. 17:59:59 yeah 18:00:37 So anyway. I didn't see any other hands go up so I will write a message about upcoming elections and their impact 18:00:39 that sounds... bad. "Fedora! Such a welcoming place that we're fueled entirely by anger!" 18:01:34 If the Council is an exciting place I'm sure there will be more interest in running for these two seats over time. 18:01:41 inode0++ 18:01:45 jwb, maybe sounds bad, but you make laugh 18:01:45 inode0++ 18:02:05 There is anger, and I hope that one of our goal would be "community happiness" 18:02:17 yn1v, never underestimate the power of quiet rage :) 18:02:20 number80++ to that too 18:02:39 okay so ... an hour on this. does anyone have any other topics? 18:02:50 I always wanted to have 5th fundation: FUN 18:02:59 jwb: Scratching one's own itches ;) 18:03:02 nope, didn't mean to use up an hour on that 18:03:16 inode0, good conversation though 18:03:23 indeed 18:03:31 inode0: this is part of your job, raising your concerns :) 18:03:36 I agree, yes. :) 18:04:05 okay, so.... ending meeting? 18:04:21 please 18:04:24 #endmeeting